The (Unrecognized) US Contribution to Bloodshed in Syria, Part Two

Bashar Asad sought closer relations with the West but the U.S. was planning to remove him as early as 2006, eventually leading to war in Syria, says As’ad AbuKhalil in the second & last part of this Consortium News commentary.

Bashar Al-Asad did not intend to declare enmity with the U.S. when he took over from his father in 2000. On the contrary, he was keen on impressing Western leaders and governments, and incorporated many of the Western-promoted economic “reforms” ( a mere code word for neo-liberal policies which dismantle state social programs, end subsidies to the poor, and initiate privatization plans which benefit MNCs).

Bashar also continued a previous regime policy of security-intelligence cooperation with the U.S., especially since Syrian intelligence kept comprehensive files on Islamists after their past anti-regime activities (with the support of the Jordanian government by the admission of King Husayn in December 1985). Bashar was keen on pleasing Western powers perhaps in the hopes of obtaining Western investment and political pressure on Israel over the occupied Golan Heights.

Hoping most likely to ingratiate himself with Western powers, Bashar accepted the Saudi peace plan ( or so-called “Arab Peace Plan,” the name which came to then Crown Prince Abdullah bin `Abdul-`Aziz’s mind upon meetingNew York Times columnist Thomas Friedman). Bashar not only gave the Syrian regime’s approval, but pressured the Lebanese to approve the plan as well, despite the misgivings of then President Emile Lahoud. The plan was later officially adopted (on behalf of the Arab people) in the Beirut Arab League summit in 2002.

September 11 had hit shortly after Bashar’s ascension to the presidency. A list of U.S. demands was then handed to him by then Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Americans were unhappy with Syrian violations of the cruel, U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iraq, as well as the Syrian regime’s support for Hamas and Hizbullah. At the behest of Israel, the U.S. kept demanding that Hamas be expelled from Syrian territory.

The crisis in U.S.-Syrian relations peaked after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when Washington objected to the Syrian role in allowing fighters—both Islamist and Ba`thist—to cross the Syrian-Iraqi border to attack U.S. troops. One knowledgeable Syrian reporter described to me the Syrian policy at the time. He said Damascus sometimes allowed fighters to slip into Iraq, and other times they would arrest them to please the Americans.

Friedman: Conduit for Saudi spin.

The Syrian regime clearly knew its survival hinged on the failure of the U.S. occupation in Iraq, especially when U.S. officials made it very clear, in the exuberance that accompanied the preparation for the invasion, that Syria and Iran would be next on the U.S. list of regimes to overthrow. It is not clear exactly when the U.S. took the decision to bring down the Syrian regime but it was certainly well before the outbreak of the 2011 Syrian uprising.

Planned in Advance

The U.S. plot against Syria, however, doesn’t imply that the hundreds of thousands of Syrian protesters who took to the streets in 2011 were agents of foreign powers. Far from it: there were real and legitimate reasons for the Syrian people to protest against the regime and to demand real change. The republican Ba`thist coup of 1970 developed in time into a full-blown family dynasty, and the corruption of the regime was pervasive, while the early, (theoretical) ideological championing of the working classes had been long forgotten. And the regime did not relax the hold of the intelligence apparatus. The slight political freedoms promised by Bashar were soon discarded.

But long before Syrians protested, the U.S. government had been planning regime change. Time magazine reported as early as 2006: “The Bush administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document that says that the U.S. already is ‘supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists’ in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that ‘these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists‘”. The document also spoke of supplying “at least one Syrian politician” with money.

It was rather clear as soon as the protests started in 2011 that the U.S. embassy in Syria was heavily involved in the affair. Ambassador Robert Ford was not even trying to hide his active political role (a role that would have gotten any Arab ambassador kicked out of the U.S. if undertaken on U.S. territory). Anti-Hizbullah slogans raised by a few protesters in the first days of the uprising (Hizbullah had not even mentioned Syrian protests at that point) seem to have been the work of a covert foreign operation. Similarly, the sight of anti-Hizbullah demonstrators in recent Iranian protests were so quickly captured and disseminated by Western media and portrayed as the reason for the entire protest, which had its own indigenous causes. It is likely that U.S. heavy involvement in Syrian affairs actually helped the regime and provided it with pretexts to crack down against civilian protests.

The Myth of Obama’s Retreat

We are now accustomed to hearing that the Obama administration had “retreated” from the Middle East. This line was initially produced by Saudi regime propaganda, and then captured by the Saudi/UAE-funded think tanks in Washington before it was adopted by Western media. It is now the official U.S. media and think tank line about Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The notion that the Obama administration “retreated” from the region is belied by a record of heavy involvement and expansion of wars in the Middle East and North Africa. Obama expanded all the wars he inherited from the Bush administration with the exception of the occupation of Iraq occupation after objections from Baghdad, though that was partially reversed after ISIS took over large swaths of Iraqi territory. Obama also intensified covert operations, assassinations and drone warfare.

Obama with MBS: Saudi myth of his retreat.

In Syria, Obama ultimately did not refrain from intervening by supplying various rebels with arms, money, and equipment. He just didn’t share the high regard for the jihadists nor did he support direct U.S. intervention that many of his advisors, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, did. The New York Times reported that Gulf regimes received Obama administration consent before delivering arms to Syrian rebels. The notion, later raised, that the U.S. did not notice that Qatar had supplied some Syrian rebels with MOPADs is not believable.

By 2012, the U.S. knew that “most” of the arms shipped from Qatar and Saudi Arabia wound up in the hands of jihadi rebels. The myth of moderate Syrian rebels was almost an inside joke: no one really believed that the rebels were largely moderate nor that they were all controlled either by two woman from Damascus or by men in suits in Istanbul. This fiction was necessary to keep the war going and to win the sympathy of Western public opinion, an effort that was largely successful with the help of heavily funded Western public relations and lobbying firms paid for by Gulf monarchies.

Obama, typically, had it both ways: he would express doubts about the value of arming the Syrian rebels and would question their moderation, while authorizing shipments of money and arms and allowing the CIA and the Pentagon to train those same rebels (after screening them, of course, which amounted to asking each rebel whether he is a moderate or a radical).

The U.S. was heavily involved in the first major operation to arm the rebels and take the Syrian conflict in a bloody direction. The notion that the rebels were all moderate and secular but that they were radicalized by regime oppression was never proven, and it is not even believable. That secular and moderate protesters would suddenly grow beards and adopt the ideology of Al-Qai`dah or its splinter, ISIS, is too absurd a scenario to be taken seriously—but it was a convenient story for Western and Gulf media.

Launched from Lebanon

It was from Lebanon that the U.S. ran its first major operation to aid Syrian rebels and change the nature of the conflict in Syria from protests against the regime to a civil war. When the U.S. saw the regime was not falling as quickly as the Libyan, Tunisian, or Egyptian regimes had, it sought a quick end especially because of Israel’s stake in the outcome. In addition to a Jordan-based operation by U.S. and Saudi intelligence to aid the rebels, major arms smuggling operations were launched through the Lebanese “Fir` Al-Ma`lumat” (a Lebanese intelligence apparatus run by the Hariri family, and managed by U.S. and Saudi intelligence). The Hariri camp’s direct involvement in Lebanon was revealed in intercepted audio tapes in which a Hariri member of parliament, `Uqab Saqr, was heard responding to Syrian rebel’s demands for shipments of arms.

Wisam Al-Hasan: Trained jihadists. (Photo: Agos)

Wisam Al-Hasan (the head of the Hariri-contolled intelligence apparatus) was arming and training militants from Tripoli and the Biqa` region to send to Syria along with large shipments of arms. (The Economist noted his role back in 2013). Al-Hasan’s role was uncovered in Lebanon and he was assassinated in 2012 (his last foreign trip was to Washington, where he met the CIA director himself, David Petreus). Also, Lebanese authorities had intercepted a ship, the Lutfallah II, at the port of Tripoli in north Lebanon. It had a load of arms (from Libya) intended to be transferred to Syrian rebels. Tthe plan was initiated in the UAE and then reached Tripoli, a city was under the security control of Fir` Al-Ma`lumat.

It is highly likely that the U.S. threw its weight behind the regional effort by the GCC, Turkey and Jordan to topple the Syrian regime but the plan changed when the U.S. realized that the fall of the regime was more difficult than expected. Instead, the U.S. did what it has done before: allow various parties to engage in prolonged bloodletting for the benefit of its ally Israel. The U.S. had let the Iran-Iraq war drag on for eight years because it enjoyed watching two countries that it did not favor suffer and be distracted, while it did something similar in Lebanon: allowing the war to drag on for many years.

Furthermore, the story of U.S. involvement in the bloody war in Syria should note its reckless bombing (under the guise of the anti-ISIS coalition), which resulted in a large number of civilian casualties, but was—ironically—far less effective in defeating ISIS than the efforts of foes of the U.S. in Syria.

As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam & America’s New ‘War on Terrorism’ (2002), and The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004). He also runs the popular blogThe Angry Arab News Service.

47 comments for “The (Unrecognized) US Contribution to Bloodshed in Syria, Part Two”

“We came, we saw, he died”, cackle, cackle, cackle (that will be the witch’s legacy; areal look into her soul). That is the gist of US foreign policy laid bare for all to see. And surely people are watching and aware of it!

Thanks for a concise look at the development of the US aggressive role in Syria, particularly showing Obama’s sinister treachery and Friedman’s shadowy Saudi interactions. Especially interesting was showing how Assad had to change because of the sum of forces in conflict, including internal grievances of Syrian people, and then the horrors unleashed by the US supporting ISIS. Assad simply intended to be a practicing opthalmologist but was thrust into his presidential role by the death of his autocrat father and the accidental death of his elder brother, legitimate heir. The war apparently has had the effect of bringing the Syrian people to support Assad.

With Israel determined to keep the illegally seized Golan Heights, a severe drought in the Middle East, and Eurasia coming into economic independence from the West, we are seeing major changes in world politics. Erdogan’s recent condemnation of Israel because of the Gaza killings is significant.

There is more and more discussion about the decline of US hegemony on websites. Trump is aiding the US decline with his Israel First agenda and utterly stupid economic moves. I have read that there is growing support for the BDS movement worldwide. Seems things are heating up and Trump is the catalyst.

The (Unrecognized) Israeli Contribution to “Regime Change” War in Syria:

The Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis effort in Syria includes serial chemical incidents that point to a signature Israeli contribution to the “dirty war”.

In addition to its nuclear weapons arsenal, Israel possesses chemical and biological warfare stockpiles, with all the necessary production facilities to manufacture and deliver modified chemical agents on an ad hoc basis, including sarin nerve agent.

What is astonishing is that the independent investigative journalism community has taken relatively little interest in Israeli chemical and nerve agent production, the war propaganda “verification” efforts of Higgins and Bellingcat, or the phenomenon of “Government Assessment” as a substitute for actual intelligence gathering and verification.

One only needs to keep in mind, while trying to sort out all the various “news” sources and their agendas, that the US was the 1st to develop and use on other people and even experiment with the radiation on its own people and other Pacific island people and environments, “the bomb.” We also make and have huge stores of chemical weapons on Johnston Island in the Pacific. As native Americans realized years ago, our government speaks with “forked tongue”. That tongue also slither out of each side of government’s mouth.

“Since Donald Trump became president, Israel was caught handing over cash, food, and medical attention to Syrian rebels attempting to overthrow Assad – but nobody cared. Since Donald Trump took up residence in the White House, Israel has been pumping influence and cash into the establishment of an independent Kurdish state. And after Donald Trump became America’s most controversial president ever, the United States establish the first permanent military base on Israeli soil. […]

“the air-defense facility put in operation back in September of 2017. The base in the heart of Israel’s Negev Desert is important for many reasons, but mostly because it is manned by U.S. military personnel. Situated inside the Israeli Air Force’s Mashabim Air Base, the American contingent form an effective shield against Iranian or Syrian attacks on Israel’s most vital air base. Elements of the US 10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command are now serving as human shields to protect the base from attacks. This proves to be an interesting element of strategy given recent events, especially if Iran were determined to counterstrike Israel after the much publicized IDF strikes last week. More importantly, it seems the Israeli-US strategic thinkers may have pre-planned the current confrontation with Iran. But there’s still more.

“Few people realize the significance of Mashabim Air Base and the United States setting a permanent base inside an IDF base. Just down the road from Mashabim is the home to “Israel’s nuclear reactor and the ‘not openly acknowledged’ nuclear warhead arsenal.” So, in the event of a likely Iranian counterattack to negate Israel sending nukes to attack Tehran, these preemptive moves by the US and Israelis add a new complexity to analyzing Middle East policy.”

Mathew Neville – Tucker Carlson’s commentary on the Syrian war was exceptional (which Jimmy Dore shows throughout the video). Jimmy Dore does a great job too, and kudos to him for applauding Carlson. Everybody should watch that whole video. Thanks for posting it.

Kim Jong Un is not stupid enough to give up his Nuclear weapons, he knows full well that any agreement entered into with the devious US Administration are just words written on water which America will never honor as they can’t ever be trusted to abide by any agreements? Kim has started dismantling the Nuke sites now, for show, only because he doesn’t need them anymore as he already has the Bomb & nukes capable of reaching America! Thus, Nth Korea can start negotiating from a position of strength, unlike Libya, Iraq, etc who gave up their weapons after entering into agreements with the US, then as soon as that happened & exactly to plan, the Yanks tore up the deal & invaded! And just as they recently tore up the Iran deal to stop Iran making the Bomb, setting that Country up for invasion, it’s embarrassing how stupidly predictable the US is, all it’s moves are telegraphed in advance? Kim has shown his ICBM’s although primitive, can reach the American mainland & also there are 30,000 US Troops in Sth Korea soil that would be reduced to a Nuclear pile of ash if America ever tried to attack! That’s how you negotiate with a bully such as America, from a position of Nuclear deterrent strength, as that’s the only way to reason with these lunatics, Mutual Assured Destruction!

I like your assessment of the Korean Peninsula’s situation, and I agree that Kim would be wise to keep his biggest strength. It would seem utterly delirious if Kim throw that card away, it’s the card that brought his country to the table. My fear, as I’m preparing myself for the letdown, is when Trump & Co. trash the ‘deal’ ….everything’s a deal now, but anyway this fits the cart before the horse our uncles talked about, with a lot of MSM hyped trauma if just anybody flinches. I went to far there, but minus my dramatics you know what I mean… right?

I honestly can’t visualize Raytheon, Lockheed, etc MIC going along with any denuclearization along those borders…. and that is sad, but it is inevitable, yet only profits fog the eye of the mighty profiteer. In the future, if we make it that far, I hope the world can enforce a rule where countries may only have a defense for a 400 mile radius of their own borders, or something along those lines to retract the global war network that the U.S. and it’s allies have installed…maybe the new emerging multi-sovereign nation’s could pull it off… who knows?

Thanks for the intelligent comment appraisal, but I still want to sit with the fun kids on the back of the bus. Always a pleasure to read your blunt but fun comments KiwiAntz. Joe

Joe,
Your proposal of 400 mile limit beyond the country’s borders for employing military defenses is a great idea. Otherwise the speed with which the new all kind of offensive weapons are being built, it is only a matter of time before the World civilization self destructs itself. It is hard to believe, there is not any voices left in the Ruling Establishment, Media, and Academia in The West to raise concerns about what is going on – except a few like Rand Paul. The way the Political and Ruling Establishment is acting in Washington, it is going to be a hot summer. There are not many thoughtful people left out there in Nation’s Capitol.

The 400 mile radius defensive border is what Russia built its military mechanism around. I too Dave fail to see the light at the end of the tunnel when I look towards DC. It’s the money Dave. These critters leave political life to go lobby and sponsor all sorts of entities and causes, with never a never mind for the public commons. That democracy thing about the majority only seems Dave to reference the majority of money, not people, when it comes to serving anybody or anything. But yeah, denuclearize first, and then strip back defensive spending to be just that defensive. Enough of this worldwide hegemony.

History is not on our side Dave for any of this to happen, but we citizens need to keep a complaining until something changes, or we won’t be here much longer. Joe

The US has a long record of (violent) imperialism. One thing that has remained true throughout is that the US never accepts responsibility for what it does. Whatever happens, we blame other governments/nations. Currently, the main scapegoats appear to the Russia, Israel and some (all?) of the Arab countries, but we’re flexible, and might have a new scapegoat next month.

All very interesting, and boring at the same time, when one reflects on how long this same old song has been played. War is not the answer. War threatens our survival as a species. Peace is the answer to all our problems. Real peace is a state beyond the mere absence of war. We must work to achieve that Peace. It will not happen without our working to make it so. Solutions based on coercion are not real solutions, but always give rise to more problems.

Informative and surprised by role Hariri in Lebanon played. It is not surprising in the sense of the unexpected but as new information to me. What was not mentioned is that Assad did make concessions after the riots and we need to be reminded he is the legitimately elected President of his country.

That he tried for better relations with the West is understandable, what is reprehensible that when such actions occur we turn our backs. Putin is put in the same boat. His comment in his national address I think after the election that Russia is not in search of enemies but friends. No question to what nation that arrow was aimed.

With regard to the recent massacre of Palestinians, our leaders have once again played the role of feckless puppets. .Ditto Iran, ditto, ditto, ditto

Thank you. The 2014 Syria election was necessarily restricted to government-held areas where the vote was 88% for Assad. NPR claimed that “Thousands of voting booths are open in government-held areas of the country. But there will be no vote in rebel or ISIS-held zones. Kurdish-run cantons are boycotting, but state TV shows voting going ahead there” and that the “opposition… argue there can be no fair vote when millions are displaced” although the vote among displaced Syrians in Lebanon was strongly for Assad. Some consider the vote fair under the circumstances:https://www.ajamubaraka DOT com/elections-in-syria-the-people-say-no-to-foreign-intervention/

The zionist media (Guardian, HuffPo, BBC) and zionist governments (US/Israel/KSA/EU) claimed that it was not fair, but they were militarily attacking Syria at the time, not an accepted form of democratic participation. Whose approach to democracy was more dictatorial?

The article assumes that the 2014 Syria election was not legitimate, and refers to the government as a “regime” of “pervasive” corruption with only “slight political freedoms” despite its protection of minority rights. That sounds very much like the US even in peacetime.

This is the pattern of the US: attack a socialist country either militarily or by massive tampering with democracy, and claim that during its struggle for survival it is less democratic. The US must restore democracy in the US before lamenting its limitations elsewhere.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Syria plotting goes back much further than one might think, please look at this link from this morning’s Off Guardian describing a secretive regime change by America and Great Britain during the Eisenhower administration keeping intact the aggressive and secretive plotting of post WWII.

Also, yesterday I ran into a 2015 article by Jason Hirthler where he very accurately described the continuity of the Obama administration…

I would add one point – yes, the U.S. became active in its attempt to destabilize the government of Syria in 2006,
under the “leadership” of one George Bush. What is even less well known is that this was done during a period when Syria was experiencing its worst drought in its history. It does not take a great imagination to sense what it would have been like
during such a drought – think of rising prices for basic foods, like bread, or for medicine, etc. This timing speaks to the dark side of our
country and its manipulation of events to engineer what we want.

I appreciate your section on the Obama Administration and its heavy involvement of promoting further war inside Syria. Some,
promoted by the media, were living a fairy tale thinking our involvement was nil.

From 2006-2011, up to 60% of Syria’s land experienced, in the terms of one expert, “the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.” According to a special case study from last year’s Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR), of the most vulnerable Syrians dependent on agriculture, particularly in the northeast governorate of Hassakeh (but also in the south), “nearly 75 percent…suffered total crop failure.” Herders in the northeast lost around 85% of their livestock, affecting 1.3 million people.

Only a Native-American with a long memory of their brutal history of dealing with the White Man would understand the back stabbing negotiating methods this article describes. Does a current battle hardened Bashar Assad reflect upon his past eagerness to be all Western in cultural and finance feel relieved that he didn’t experience the same fate as a cooperative American tool Muammar Gaddafi did? Is there any reason on this green earth why any nations leader would trust a ‘deal’ made with their American negotiators? And then I think, Kim Jung un.

Hi joe
I really need your help. Again, today we took my dad to the va, and they are doing everything for him. He is dying and using resources that should be given to the younger vets, What would you do? I am trying to promote his life, but it is not fair to deny new army people of their benefits.

First off I won’t think that the VA cupboards will be left bare by them treating your father. I don’t know, but your father should have a living will. You may wish to look into his giving you power of attorney.

It’s a very hard thing to struggle with when it comes to watching a loved one die. I would suggest you do engine searches or talk to a lawyer, but all of these issues may be addressed properly, but tina you want to protect yourself while doing what’s right for your father legally.

I’ve see people pull through when all hope was loss, as I’ve witnessed people pass away suddenly when not even expected. Although if there is no cure available, and if the sick patient is deteriorating without hope of recovery, well then it’s decision time. I have been in a few situations of this kind, but I can’t tell you what to do, especially since I’m not there. What I can say is, for you to concentrate on your father’s health and not worry about the Veterans Administration running out of the necessary remedies which are available to everyone.

The VA will be just fine, worry about your Pop. Keep yourself together as much as you can… you can do this, because you and your father have been through a lot, as you are stronger for it.

I just thanked God for your dad. Now do what needs done. Take care tina. Joe

Matthew your link brings back memories of Benghazi. I recall back then that Tony Cartalucci questioned 8 months prior to why McCain was seen in Benghazi with Ambassador Stevens shaking hands with al Quada, and then on the day of the attack Webster Tarpley & moonofalabama were the only ones that had it right coming off the wires.

I could never understand why CIA Director General David Petraeus wasn’t hauled in. That’s why I’ve always thought Petraeus dropped a dime on himself with his extramarital affair.

I think Hillary, Petraeus, McCain, Sarkozy, and Erdogan were trafficking in the arms into the center of Syria. I’m not leaving Obama off the hook, but no offense I think he didn’t have control. I also think he signed things, as he knows how it works.

Think of it a timeline of our relationship with the Mujahideen al Qaeda ISIS all the same, all the disgruntled proxy fighters pissed off over shoddy weapons, or underhanded reprisals by their sponsors or their sponsors friends… so many to feed, so many more to upset the table. Be careful to the friends you make. Ha Hillary! What difference does it make?

Back in August 2016 I was tweeting the claim that Clinton approved delivering sarin nerve gas to the Syrian rebels and Scott Horton (who had done Anti War Radio) replied and said:

“fyi hersh never said that. there’s one very viral article that extrapolates from what they think he was getting at kinda thing, but it’s wrong. hersh said the sarin came from turkey, not libya. – sorry i ain’t mean to be a busybody, just trying to help.”

While given the range of the missiles that carried the sarin and the fact the rebels controlled that area it seems clear the attack was carried out by the rebels, not the Assad government.

I haven’t seen Seymour Hersh stating that Hillary was involved in sarin getting to the Syrian rebels either in an article, interview, or audio / video.

Yes, you think “Kim Jung Un” and you wonder what can possibly be going on in N. Korea? According to John Bolton, all that is being offered to Kim is “assurances” from Washington that America will not invade his country or overthrow his regime. No promised withdrawals of American troops, missile batteries, spy stations or general meddling within S. Korea. In return, Kim must not only stop his nuke program and disassemble all functional weapons, but turn over all the components and enriched isotopes to the United States. At that point he can only hope that Uncle Sam doesn’t treat his assurances like he did those made to Gorbachev, or Gaddaffi, or Rouhani… Since when does a man so ruthless, according to the American narrative, that he had his own brother assassinated with a nerve agent on foreign soil (sound familiar?) spontaneously transform into a Yank-trusting kitty cat? What’s the rest of the story? What credible threats or covert actions has Washington made that cannot be told?

I never thought of coercion, or otherwise methods to be used to convince Kim Jung un to come to an agreement. Although, now that you bring it to mind Realist, that is a factor worth contemplating.

I personally wouldn’t trust any promise coming out of Washington. If at all possible Kim Jung un would be wise to keep as many nukes as possible even after the negotiations were completed. Well we know that won’t work, but what assurances could be given to Kim Jung un to make his blending with his S Korean counterpart a comfortable experience.

If I were placing a bet on this merger of the 2 Korea’s I would not bet to heavily on a successful outcome once the U.S. sits down at the negotiation table. The day of their ‘word being as good as gold’ are gone especially when it comes to bargaining with the U.S..

The latest news is Kim has cancelled his next meeting with the Sth Korean Leader & that the whole summit with Trump has been sabotaged by the US? How completely typical of the US! How has this happened? Kim promised to destroy his nuke site with the sole condition that America also stops its provacative Military drills as a sign of good faith? What happened? America conducted massive Military drills yesterday, despite promising not too? It’s becoming patently obvious that America cannot be trusted to honor anything they commit to? It’s almost as if America can’t take the risk that “Peace might break out” because of you are a Country whose whole philosophy is based on fighting endless war’s around the World, Peace can’t be allowed to break out, it would bankrupt the US Govt & it’s MIC?

Even if he were to force a N. Korean surrender (and therefore a “peace”) upon Korea, doesn’t his warmongering with respect to Iran, Syria and Russia sort of disqualify him as a “man of peace” and as a recipient of that prize? His cabinet choices alone scotch the notion that he seeks peace anywhere.